Summary for Reviewers

A quick reference for the key steps:

• 1. Accept Invitation: Respond to the review invitation email.
• 2. Access Files: Download the manuscript and supplementary files from the provided URL.
• 3. Complete Review: Fill out the review form with detailed comments.
• 4. Upload Files (Optional): Add any additional documents if needed.
• 5. Submit Recommendation: Select a final recommendation and submit it.

Detailed Guidelines

I. Getting Started

This journal uses a Single-Blind Peer Review process, which means the reviewer's identity is anonymous, but the author's identity is known to the reviewer. Please respond promptly and aim to complete the review by the deadline.

II. The Review Process: 6 Easy Steps

1. Accept the Invitation: Click the link in the email to accept.
2. Read the Guidelines: Familiarize yourself with these policies.
3. Download Files: Access and download the manuscript. You must accept the review request first.
4. Fill out the Review Form: The form is active after you accept the request. You can save your progress.
5. Upload Optional Files: Add any supporting documents.
6. Submit Your Review: Choose a recommendation and submit the form.

III. Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

As a reviewer, you are expected to uphold the following ethical responsibilities based on the principles of COPE and ICMJE:

• Confidentiality: The manuscript is a privileged document. Do not share or use the information.
• Objectivity: Your review should be objective and based on the work's scientific merit. Personal attacks are unacceptable.
• Timeliness: Only agree to review if you have the expertise and time to meet the deadline.
• Competing Interests: Declare any potential conflicts of interest to the editor. See the detailed guidelines below for common situations.
• Plagiarism and Misconduct: Report any suspicion of misconduct to the editor confidentially.

IV. Using Reporting Guidelines

You can use the links below to access the authoritative reporting guidelines relevant to the specific article you are reviewing. These checklists ensure that the study reports all the necessary information for a fair and transparent assessment.

• Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
  Primary guideline: CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) www.consort-statement.org

  Use the CONSORT 2010 checklist to assess whether all essential items, such as the randomization method, blinding procedures, and participant flow, have been reported.

• Observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional)
  Primary guideline: STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) www.strobe-statement.org

  Use the STROBE checklist to confirm that the manuscript reports critical elements for observational studies, including participant eligibility, statistical analysis, and confounder management.

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
  Primary guideline: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) www.prisma-statement.org

  The PRISMA 2020 statement and checklist are used to evaluate if the review's search strategy, study selection, risk-of-bias assessment, and synthesis of results are reported transparently and completely.

• Diagnostic/prognostic studies
  Primary guideline: STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) www.stard-statement.org

  Use STARD to review studies that evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic tests. The checklist ensures the manuscript details the test methods, patient selection, and clinical setting.

  Additional guideline: TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) www.tripod-statement.org

  For studies developing or validating a multivariable prediction model, use TRIPOD to check for comprehensive reporting of the model's design, methods, and performance.

• Case reports
  Primary guideline: CARE (CAse REports) www.care-statement.org

  Use the CARE checklist to confirm the case report is structured appropriately and includes essential patient information, diagnostic challenges, interventions, and outcomes.

• Clinical practice guidelines
  Primary guideline: AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation) www.agreetrust.org

  This tool can be used to evaluate the methodological rigor and transparency of guidelines presented in the manuscript.

V. Declaring a Conflict of Interest

It is crucial to inform the editor if you encounter a potential conflict of interest. This isn't an admission of bias, but a commitment to transparency and an unbiased review process. Below are common situations where you must notify the editor.

Financial Conflicts of Interest

These are the most clear-cut conflicts. They involve any financial gain or loss that could be directly tied to the outcome of the review.

• Direct Competition: You are an author of a competing manuscript, or you are a direct competitor to the authors in the same field of research.
• Funding: You receive or have applied for funding from the same organization that funded the research being reviewed.
• Financial Relationship: You have a paid or unpaid relationship with a company, organization, or individual that is directly involved in the research or could benefit from its publication. This includes:
  • Employment or Consultancy: You are an employee, consultant, or have a paid advisory role with one of the authors' institutions or with a company whose product is being studied.
  • Stock Ownership: You hold stocks or shares in a company whose product is being evaluated.
  • Patents: You are an inventor on a patent or have a pending patent related to the subject matter of the manuscript.

Personal Conflicts of Interest

These relationships can also introduce bias, even if no money is involved.

• Close Relationships: You are a family member, close friend, or have a significant personal relationship with any of the authors.
• Professional Relationships: You have a close working relationship with an author. This includes:
  • Supervision: You are or were a graduate student, post-doctoral fellow, or mentor of one of the authors.
  • Collaboration: You have recently co-authored a paper, book chapter, or grant proposal with one of the authors.
  • Institutional Affiliation: You are from the same department or institution as one of the authors, particularly if it's a small team or a highly specific field.

Intellectual Conflicts of Interest

These are less about personal relationships and more about a strong intellectual bias.

• Strong Disagreement: You have published strong public opinions (in papers, on social media, etc.) that directly contradict the findings or methodology presented in the manuscript.
• Prior Knowledge: You have a copy of the manuscript from a different source (for example, as a pre-print or from a colleague) and have already formed a strong opinion that could affect your objectivity.

VI. How to Anonymize Files

To maintain the reviewer's anonymity, here is a helpful guide on how to anonymize files you may upload: Anonymization for Peer Review